Rabbi Dov Kramer on the Parsha

Taking a Closer Look (Rabbi Dov Kramer)

     “And Moav was very afraid because of the nation, for they were many, and Moav felt disgusted because of the Children of Israel” (Bamidbar 22:3). There are numerous approaches to explain each aspect of this verse, and therefore an even more numerous combination of ways to read the verse in its entirety. The different parts of the verse that need explanation are: (1) Why were they afraid; (2) Why did they feel disgusted; (3) Were they disgusted with (or by) the Children of Israel, or were they disgusted with themselves because of the Children of Israel (or is there a better definition for the word translated as “disgusted”); (4) Why are there two ways of describing the Israelites (“the nation” and “the Children of Israel”); and (5) Why is “nation” used in conjunction with “fear” and “Children of Israel” used in conjunction with “disgust.”

     Since the mighty armies of Sichon and Og had just been wiped out by the Israelites, the starting point should be that Moav was afraid that they would be next, and that the Israelites would take over their land too, “licking up all that is around them like an ox licks up the vegetation of the field” (22:4). However, the Israelites had sent a request to Moav to be allowed to pass through their land (Shoftim 11:17), a request that was refused. Rather than going to war with Moav, the Israelites moved on, requesting to pass through Sichon's land instead. When Sichon refused, and sent his army to fight , the Israelites defeated him and took his land (Bamidbar 21:25). The Israelites hadn't gone to war with Moav because G-d specifically prohibited them from doing so (Devarim 2:9); the commentators therefore assume that Moav realized that the Israelites were prohibited from taking their land, and discuss why they were still afraid. The standard approach (Rashi on Devarim 2:9, based, as usual, on Chazal) is that even though the Israelites were prohibited from waging war against Moav, they could still bully them, and even take some of their possessions forcefully (just not their land). Therefore, after being intimidated and perhaps even pillaged, having them as next door neighbors would certainly scare them.

     The Ramban understands the “disgust” to be an additional level of “fear,” with Moav being afraid because of how many more Israelites there were than Moavites, and even more afraid because of all the amazing things that had been done for them and their ancestors. Based on this, we can easily understand why they are referred to as “the nation” regarding their size, as this “fear” would apply to any “nation” that was large, and why they are referred to by their specific name, the “Children of Israel” regarding the unique things that happened to them. The Ramban then explains what they were afraid of, if they knew that the Israelites wouldn't attack them or take their land; since Israel would become the region's superpower, every other country would have to follow their directives, including paying taxes to them. Even though Moav had been subservient to Sichon until now (see Malbim on 22:4), it can be suggested that being subservient to a nation because they have a strong king (i.e. Sichon) was not as upsetting as being subservient to the holy Nation of Israel; when the strong king dies, his power dies with him and they could hope to attain independence, but a nation whose power comes from their holiness could stay in power for eternity. (This could be another reason why the name “Children of Israel,” which refers to their special status, is emphasized.) If this was Moav's fear, the purpose of hiring Bilam to curse the Children of Israel would have been to affect their level of holiness, thus preventing them from becoming, or maintaining, their regional power.

     The Chasam Sofer suggests two other approaches, approaches that the Rinas Yitzchok asks several questions on – some of which he leaves unanswered. In both approaches the Chasam Sofer assumes that Moav knew that the Children of Israel would not wage war against them or take their land, and (as many commentators do, both here and elsewhere) understands the term “the nation” to refer to the “Eirev Rav,” the mixed multitude of people that left Egypt with the Children of Israel during the exodus (see Shemos 12:38) while “Children of Israel” refers to the descendants of Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov/Yisroel. In his first approach, the Chasam Sofer suggests that Moav was afraid that even though the Children of Israel wouldn't wage war against them, the Eirev Rav might, and were also concerned that the Children of Israel might pillage them. In his second approach, he suggests that Moav was afraid that the Eirev Rav would conquer their land, and that afterward the Children of Israel would conquer it from the Eirev Rav, much like they were allowed to conquer what had been Moav's land from Sichon after Sichon took it from them.

     The first question the Rinas Yitzchok asks is why Moav should be more afraid of the Eirev Rav than of the rest of the nation, since the prohibition against going to war against Moav (and taking their land) applied to the Eirev Rav as well. However, I'm not sure that Moav knew that the Eirev Rav had the exact same obligations as the “Children of Israel,” especially since the Children of Israel were covered and protected by the “Clouds of Glory” while the Eirev Rav was not (see Meshech Chochma on 11:1), which could be easily misunderstood to mean that they were not part of the nation and therefore not subject to the same prohibitions. (See www.aishdas.org/ta/5768/shlach.pdf, where I suggested that the Torah had to reiterate, several times, that the laws applied equally to converts because the Children of Israel didn't think that the Eirev Rav were full converts; if this point had to be made numerous times to the Children of Israel, how could it be assumed that Moav knew that all prohibitions also applied to the Eirev Rav?)

     The Rinas Yitzchok suggests that, according to the Chasam Sofer, Moav may have thought that the prohibition against conquering their land only applied to those that would get a share in the Promised Land; since the Eirev Rav wouldn't, they would be allowed to take land from Moav. He then wonders why, if that were the case, the prohibition applied to the Tribe of Levi, since they didn't get a portion in the Land either. However, they got other things instead, such as tithes (see Bamidbar 18:21) and their own cities (see Vayikra 25:32-34), while the Eirev Rav did not, so it does not seem farfetched to suggest that even though the Levi'im were included in the prohibition against conquering land from Moav, the Eirev Rav were not.

     The (other) questions on the Chasam Sofer that the Rinas Yitzchok leaves unanswered are how the Children of Israel could be permitted to conquer the land from the Eirev Rav, and why it would matter to Moav if they did, since either way they wouldn't have their land anymore. However, if Moav didn't think the Eirev Rav was part of the Nation of Israel, we can understand why they would think that the land could be conquered from them, just as it had been conquered from Sichon; as long as it wasn't taken directly from Moav, the prohibition wasn't being violated. And if part of Moav's concern was not being able to reconquer the land from the holy Children of Israel, we can understand why they would be more worried about Israel conquering it from the Eirev Rav than had it remained in the possession of the Eirev Rav.

     According to the approach(es) of the Chasam Sofer, aside from trying to affect the level of holiness of the Children of Israel, Balak wanted Bilam to curse the Eirev Rav so that they couldn't conquer Moav's land. The Sifsay Kohain (Bamidbar 14:12-20) says that the Eirev Rav died out in the desert, with none of them making it to the Promised Land. Although the Chasam Sofer understands part of Moav's fear to be based on the vast numbers of the Eirev Rav, according to the Sifsay Kohain the Eirev Rav died out slowly over the 40 years in the desert (see www.aishdas.org/ta/5769/shlach.pdf, page 2). Yalkut Reuveini (Bamidbar 1:21 and 25:24) says that the 24,000 that died in the plague after the sin of Pe'or (Bamidbar 25:9) were the children that had been born to the Eirev Rav. It is fair to speculate that these would have been the last “members” of the Eirev Rav, as within a few months the Children of Israel would enter the Promised Land, and according to the Sifsay Kohain, no one from the Eirev Rav made it there. If so, then Bilam accomplished both of the goals that Balak had set for him, as the sin of Pe'or affected the holiness of the Children of Israel, and the resulting plague wiped out what was left of the Eirev Rav. [I would further speculate that had the Eirev Rav survived, they would have settled in the lands conquered from Sichon and Og, so that the “nation” that Moshe brought out of Egypt (see Rashi on Shemos 32:7) would dwell in the land conquered by Moshe. Only after the Eirev Rav died out did the Tribes of Reuvein and Gad approach Moshe to ask if they could take that land as their inheritance.]

     The discussion until now was operating under the assumption that Moav could not be afraid that the Children of Israel would conquer their land, since they weren't attacked after permission to pass through was denied. However, there is an approach in Chazal (Bamidbar Rabbah 20:2 and Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 2) that has Moav afraid that the Children of Israel would attack them directly and take their land, as they didn't realize that it was only because Sichon had conquered it first that the Children of Israel were allowed to take it. The question this raises (which is what the commentators wanted to avoid) is why did Moav think the Children of Israel didn't just attack them instead of going to war with the more powerful Sichon?

     There are additional questions surrounding the request to pass through the land of Moav as well. For one thing, why was this request (and denial) only mentioned in Shoftim, in the conversation between Yiftach and the king of Amon? The Torah told us about the requests made of Edom and Sichon and their refusal; why didn't the Torah also tell us about the request made of Moav and their refusal? Additionally, why did Yiftach mention the request of Moav to the king of Amon? Amon was claiming that the Children of Israel had taken their land, with the crux of Yiftach's answer being that they didn't take it from Amon, but from Sichon. What relevance does Moav's refusal have with conquering land that used to belong to Amon? Although it could be suggested that Yiftach was explaining that they wouldn't have conquered the land that used to belong to Amon had either Edom or Moav allowed them passage, I would like to offer a different suggestion, one that answers all of these questions, as well as explaining the wording of Yiftach's message to Amon.

     The assumption most work with is that had Edom allowed the Children of Israel to pass through their land, they would have gone straight into the Promised Land (from the south). However, in both Bamidbar (20:17-19) and Shoftim (11:17), no mention is made of entering the Promised Land after passing through Edom. The request of Sichon, on the other hand, includes passing through “until we cross the Jordan (River) to the land that Hashem our G-d is giving to us” (Devarim 2:29). In Shoftim as well (11:19), the request of Sichon was to “pass through your land until my place.” It would seem, then, that the intention was never to enter the Land from the south; the plan had always been to enter across from Yericho, from the Plains of Moav. The problem was having to pass through Edom and Moav to get there, so Moshe asked both countries, at the same time, “while Israel lived at Kadesh” (see Shoftim 11:17), permission to do so. Once Edom refused, Moav's answer was irrelevant, and there was no need to record it (or the request) in the Torah.

     At the time of the request, Sichon hadn't yet conquered the land from Moav, which is why permission was needed from Moav to cross from their land. However, their refusal sealed their own fate, as if they wouldn't allow the Children of Israel to cross voluntarily, it would be done against their will. Since the Children of Israel weren't allowed to conquer land from Moav, G-d had to arrange for Sichon to do so, thus paving the way for that land (and specifically the crossing point at the Plains of Moav) to be conquered by Israel. At the time, the descendants of Lot all lived together, as one country (see Malbim, Torah Or, on Devarim 23:4), and were only separated (geographically, if not yet governmentally) when Sichon conquered the large swath of land in the center, with those that descended from the older daughter of Lot (i.e. Moav) in the south and those from the younger daughter (i.e. Amon) in the north(east). Therefore, when Moshe sent the message to Moav, it was also to “the sons of Amon,” and Yiftach was telling the king of the now-separate country that permission had been asked of his country to pass through, but was denied.

     If the permission to pass through Moav had only been requested when the Children of Israel were still in Kadesh, and the answer became irrelevant when Edom refused to let them get to Moav, there was no way for Moav to know that G-d had prohibited the Children of Israel from attacking them or conquering their land. Therefore, Moav was afraid of being attacked, and disgusted by the thought of having such holy, powerful neighbors.

Rabbi Dov Kramer on the Parsha

Taking a Closer Look (Rabbi Dov Kramer)

 

            “And G-d said to Moshe and to Aharon, 'because you did not have faith in Me, to sanctify Me before the eyes of the Children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this congregation to the land that I have given them'” (Bamidbar 20:12). Although the Torah never tells us explicitly what Moshe and Aharon did wrong, the commentators suggest numerous possibilities. Nevertheless, there is one standard approach, that of Rashi (20:11-12), which is based on numerous Midrashim (e.g. Midrash Yelamdeinu, quoted by Yalkut Shimoni, Midrash Agada and Midrash Lekach Tov): Moshe was commanded to “speak” to the rock, but he hit it instead.

 

            Questions on this explanation abound, questions strong enough that many commentators felt the need to offer more innovative explanations (ground-breaking when they were first suggested, even if all these years later they seem “old hat”). Some of the questions asked are more difficult than others; let’s take a closer look at what led so many commentators to abandon the “standard” approach and try one of their own. It should be noted that many commentators work with the basic idea that Moshe hit the rock instead of speaking to it (e.g. Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Chizkuni, Sefornu) and try to address many of these issues; by no means should the fact that so many propose alternative approaches indicate that the “standard” has changed.

 

            The most obvious question asked is why, if the whole point was to speak to the rock and not hit it, did G-d command Moshe (20:8) to “take the stick” with him? Doesn’t the necessity to bring his stick indicate that hitting the rock is either what G-d wanted, or that it was at least an option? Additionally, if the problem that resulted from Moshe’s sin was G-d’s name not being sanctified (20:8), the implication is that had Moshe spoken to the rock instead of hitting it, the desired sanctification would have occurred. Since rocks are inanimate objects, water coming out of them after being hit is just as great a miracle as water coming out after being spoken to. How was there such a difference in the level of sanctification because Moshe hit the rock rather than speaking to it? Another major issue that needs to be addressed is how Aharon gets blamed for Moshe’s actions. Both Moshe and Aharon are punished by not being allowed to lead the nation into the Promised Land (20:12), and Aharon’s death (i.e. not being allowed to enter the land) is directly attributed to his “rebelling against G-d’s word” (20:24). If the sin was hitting the rock instead of talking to it, why is Aharon culpable for something that only Moshe did?

 

            Which stick did Moshe “take” with him? He hit the rock with “his stick” (20:11), so that must have been the stick he took, the one he followed G-d’s command by taking (20:9), right? However, Moshe wasn’t told to take “his stick,” but “the stick” (20:8), i.e. the “known stick,” the one that was placed in the Mishkan next to the Aron (ark) that held the “Ten Commandments” (17:25), the stick that was “before G-d” (20:9, compare with 17:22-24). As the Rashbam (20:8-10) and Chizkuni (20:8) point out, G-d wanted Moshe to take this stick, the one that blossomed, flowered, and produced almonds, “to show, through it, [the nation’s] difficult rebelliousness, as it says (17:25), [it was kept next to the Aron in the Mishkan] 'for safeguarding as a sign for those who are rebellious. '” G-d didn’t ask Moshe to “take the stick” to hit the rock; it was needed to address “the rebels.”

 

            Although we now know why G-d commanded Moshe to take the stick, we have a different issue to deal with instead. The “stick” proved that Aharon and his sons were chosen by G-d to be the Kohanim (see Rashi on 17:25) and/or that the Tribe of Levi was chosen to serve in place of the first-born (see Ramban). This “rebellion” (if we are to use such a harsh term) was about the conditions in the desert (not enough water), not about who was given the role of serving in the Mishkan. Yes, they asked Moshe and Aharon why they “brought the nation into this desert to die” (20:4), and even why they brought them out of Egypt (20:5), questioning whether this was really G-d’s idea or Moshe and Aharon’s. And it can be suggested that just as “the stick” proved that Moshe didn’t choose Aharon, or the Tribe of Levi, himself, but was only relaying G-d’s commandments, it could, by extension, be a “hint” that Moshe didn’t make the travel plans himself, but was following G-d’s orders. Nevertheless, just showing the nation “the stick” doesn’t really address the aspect they were “rebelling” about; the only real way to address it was to provide them with the water they so desperately needed (which G-d did). Why then did G-d command Moshe to “prove” that Aharon was really chosen to be Kohain and/or the Tribe of Levi to replace the first-born, if that wasn’t what the commotion was about?

 

            “When Miriam died, they did not eulogize her and did not bury her [publicly]. Rather, Moshe [was] at the head and Aharon at the foot, and they went and buried her” (Yalkut Shimoni 787). Wait a second! How could Aharon, the Kohain Gadol, have been Miriam’s pallbearer if even a “regular” Kohain can’t become “tamay” (ritually impure) for a married sister? Tosfos (Kesubos 103b) discusses whether a Kohain would have been allowed to be involved in the burial of Rebbe HaKadosh, and based on this, the Panim Yafos suggests that if it’s true that there are righteous people whose corpses are not “tamay,” there would be no problem with Aharon being involved in Miriam’s burial. After all, the Talmud (Bava Basra 17a) tells us that Miriam was one of only six people that didn’t succumb to the “Malach Ha’muves” (angel of death); her death came through “G-d’s kiss” (as it were), so she would certainly qualify. R’ Eli Steinberg (Minchas Eliyahu) takes it a step further, quoting the Ramban (19:2) who says explicitly that those who die via “neshika” (G-d’s kiss) are not “tamay” since it is the “bite of the snake” (the Malach Ha’muves) that causes the “tumah.” Therefore, Miriam’s body was not “tamay,” and Aharon was allowed to help bury her.

 

            Okay, so now we know that there was no problem with Aharon burying Miriam. But did everyone else know this? What did they think when they heard that Miriam had died and only Moshe and Aharon buried her? They must have wondered how Aharon, the Kohain Gadol, could become “tamay.” When they had no water, and wondered how G-d could lead them to a place where they would die of thirst, the old doubts started to return. Maybe it wasn’t G-d that made Aharon and his sons Kohanim, so there was no issue with his burying Miriam. And maybe G-d didn’t tell Moshe to take the nation out of Egypt and bring them into the desert. The two issues merged together, and G-d was going to deal with each one of them. First He commanded Moshe to take out “the stick,” the one that was “before G-d,” to remind them of the “stick test” that was done 37 years earlier that proved that Aharon was divinely chosen for the Kehuna. Once that was done, all He had to do was provide water, and everyone would know that it was G-d who brought them into the desert.

 

            Did Moshe know this? Did he realize that once the issue of Aharon being chosen Kohain was gone, the “rebellion” against his leadership would also dissipate? Or, did he think that the only “rebellion” the “stick” was meant to neutralize was the one against Aharon? Based on his telling the congregation, “listen up, rebels” before getting the water to start pouring out of the rock, we can assume that Moshe thought that a “rebellion” was still going on, even after having shown them “the stick.”

 

            G-d had told Moshe and Aharon to "gather the assembly" (20:8). However, rather than gathering the "assembly" ("aidah"), we are told (20:10) that they "gathered the congregation" ("kahal"). The word "kahal" is the same word used for "gather," implying that it is a group comprised of individuals that are gathered together, while the word "aidah" (with the root letters of yud-ayin-daled) means "pre-arranged." It is the same word used for meeting together ("va'ad") and "holiday" ("mo-aid"), which is a previously appointed time when people get together. In other words, an "aidah" is a group of people that share a common purpose, an entity onto itself, whereas a "kahal" is a conglomerate of individuals with varying agendas. G-d had told Moshe and Aharon to gather together the nation in order to solve a communal problem (having no water), but they called together all the individuals that comprised the nation, since they viewed them as individuals with personal complaints.

 

            G-d tried to give Moshe another hint that he and Aharon didn’t need to “prove” that their leadership had divine approval, by telling them that after the “rock gives forth its waters,” i.e. on its own after being spoken to, the end result will still be that “you will [have been] the one that brought out water for them from the rock, and you will [have been] the one to give them and their animals to drink” (Bamidbar 20:8). Moshe didn’t need to directly address the validity of his and Aharon’s leadership; once the nation’s needs were met, they would no longer be any reason to doubt whether traveling through the desert was their idea or G-d’s.

 

            Unfortunately, Moshe and Aharon didn’t get the message. They gathered the “kahal,” not the “aidah.” Moshe called them “rebels.” Then came the big moment, the time to actually bring water out of the rock. Moshe and Aharon speak to the rock, but nothing happens. If the only issue is getting water, it makes little difference if it comes out immediately, as long as it comes out. However, if there’s a “rebellion” to deal with, this is devasting. Feeling the need to prove themselves, Moshe and Aharon decide to go to plan “B,” hitting the rock the way Moshe did 38 years earlier. But that doesn’t work either. It’s as if G-d gave them a chance to reconsider their decision to hit the rock, and go back to talking to it. Instead, they decide to hit the rock a second time (20:11). By now, if water doesn’t come out, it would be embarrasing, and people really might start to question their leadership again, so G-d brings out “lots of water” despite the rock being hit rather than spoken to.

 

            Midrash Lekach Tov understands “speaking to the rock” to be, “you (plural) should say to it in My name, 'this is what G-d says: 'give forth your waters. '” Rashi seems to be following this approach (based on his quoting Midrash Agada), as the “sanctification” that would have occurred had Moshe spoken to the rock was the nation saying, “if this rock, which doesn’t speak, can’t hear, and doesn’t have any financial needs, fulfills G-d’s word, how much more so should we (fulfill G-d’s word).” Hitting the rock indicates that the waters were taken out by force, whereas had the waters come out after G-d’s request was relayed, the desired lesson could be learned (see Mizrachi). All hitting the rock proved was that Moshe and Aharon’s leadership was legitimate. Speaking to the rock, besides validating their leadership, would have inspired the nation, and they might not have had similar complaints the next time they had to face the desert’s harsh conditions (21:4-5). (See Sefornu for his explanation as to how hitting the rock was a “category two” miracle while speaking to the rock would have been a “category three” miracle, and what that means.)

 

            The nation was thirsty, and coupled with seeing Aharon bury Miriam, they started to doubt his and Moshe’s leadership. Rather than calmly reassuring them that G-d would take care of them, they fled to the Mishkan (20:6). This implied lack of confidence could have been reversed by calmly speaking to the rock rather than angrily hitting it, but because they wrongly assessed the situation and thought there was still a “rebellion” to contend with, they decided that hitting the rock instead was warranted. Aharon was an integral part of the decision to hit the rock (rather than trying again to speak to it), and together with Moshe had concluded that there was still a rebellion to deal with, not just a communal need. As a result, even though the nation’s needs were met, and any question about Moshe and Aharon’s leadership was resolved, the level of sanctification that could have occurred did not. And because of this, both Moshe and Aharon were not allowed to lead the nation into the Promised Land.

Ambassador Oren on Colbert talking about the flotilla

http://bit.ly/9MTfW4

Rabbi Dov Kramer on the Parsha

Taking a Closer Look (Rabbi Dov Kramer)

    After Dusun and Avirum refuse Moshe’s request that they meet with him face-to-face (Bamidbar 16:12), they verbally attack him (16:13-14). Their refusal is then punctuated with these enigmatic words (pardon my opening translation): “Will you gouge out the eyes of those men? We will not go up (i.e. appear before you)!” What do these words mean? Did they really think that Moshe might gouge out anyone’s eyes?

    Rashi understands these words as one statement; “even if you send someone to gouge out our eyes if we do not go up to you, we will not go up.” Even though the eyes being gouged out belonged to “them,” they really meant themselves, but they didn’t want to talk about themselves being harmed. The commentators explain why Rashi uses this approach, including how what seems to be a question can be a statement (see Gur Aryeh), Nevertheless, unless they thought that Moshe might actually physically blind them, the choice of the perceived threat, and the graphic means used to describe how he would blind them, seems a bit peculiar. The Or Hachayim says that they were using an example of the kind of pain and suffering they would prefer to endure rather than having to appear before Moshe. Still, there must be a reason why they chose this specific example.

    Rashbam is among the numerous commentators (e.g. Midrash Agada and Chizkuni) that explain these words metaphorically; “Do you think that these men complaining against you have no eyes to see?” They aren’t blind, and can see what you have done to them (and haven’t done for them), bringing them out of a very good land (Egypt), promising them a better one but only bringing them into the desert to die. Rabbeinu Bachye quotes a similar approach (likely referring to the Tur), but instead of “them” referring to those complaining, it refers to those that came out of Egypt (even those that aren’t actually complaining). Other variations on this include the approach of the Tzaidah LaDerech, where the blindness they are accusing Moshe of trying to cause would be brought about by bribing them; “will you cause them to turn a blind eye by giving them prominent leadership positions?” In order to address the issue of it being “them” that will be blinded (and not “us,” i.e. Dusun and Avirum), the Tzaidah LaDerech suggests that they are saying “even if you bribed us, causing us to disregard what you have done, will you be able to blind all the others” that are part of the rebellion? Ibn Ezra suggests that the “them” are the elders that had remained on Moshe’s side (see 16:25), with Dusun and Avirum telling Moshe that eventually he will lose all of his support. Tzror Hamor understands the “them” to be the Levi’im, i.e. even if you could blind them, convincing your own Tribe that they “have plenty” and shouldn’t want the Priesthood too, we (Dusun and Avirum) cannot be blinded, and will not “go up” (see Alshich). Similarly, the Malbim says that Dusun and Avirum were saying that even if you could fool everyone else, you can’t fool us.

The Kesav Sofer suggests that Dusun and Avirum’s response to Moshe was a long accusation that he craved leadership and did things in order to attain and maintain it; he took them out of Egypt so that he could be their leader, and, knowing that he wouldn’t be their leader once they reached the Promised Land, conspired to delay them for decades in the wilderness. Doing so prevented the next leaders, the “eyes” of the nation, from taking over, so they were accusing Moshe of “gouging out” (keeping down) the “eyes” (leaders) of “those men” (the rest of the nation).

    After giving two ways of understanding the words of Dusun and Avirum metaphorically (either they are stating that even a blind person can tell that Moshe has little substance to back him up or they are asking if Moshe plans to blind them so that they won’t understand the wrong being done to them), the Pa’anayach Raza (one of the later Tosafists) suggests that the “them” refers to the nations living in Canaan, i.e. “even if you blind those in Canaan (such as with the poison of the hornets, see Rashi on Shemos 23:28) we will not be able to go up and conquer them because they are so strong.” (HaKesav VeHaKabbala understands Targum Yonasan to be saying this as well.) This is also the second approach suggested by R’ Chaim Paltiel; his first is that until Moshe is able to blind the nations in Canaan (i.e. conquers them), they will not answer his summons. Targum Yonasan also understands the “them” as being the nations in Canaan, but takes a slightly different approach with some understanding the suggestion to be that Dusun and Avirum were saying that Moshe won’t be able to blind those living in Canaan, and therefore will be unable to conquer it. The Rokayach gives a fourth variation on this theme, suggesting that the Amori’im (one of the primary nations living in Canaan) will blind the eyes of the Children of Israel, i.e. they will prevent them from “going up” and conquering the land.

    The Rokayach’s second approach is also interesting; Dusun and Avirum will not meet with Moshe, in essence gouging out the eyes of Moshe and Aharon by refusing to answer his summons. The Ran (Moed Katan 16a), Midrash Hacheifetz, and Midrash Lekach Tov also explain the “them” to be referring to Moshe and Aharon, with Yalkut M’or Afeila suggesting that Dusun and Avirum didn’t use the word “them” (but said “your eyes,” i.e. Moshe’s); the Torah itself changed it to “them” in deference to Moshe.

    The term for “gouging out eyes” (“nikur einayim”) is used elsewhere in Tanach, and, as Rav Elchanan Samet (www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.63/38korach.htm) points out, it is meant literally (not metaphorically). Shimshon’s eyes were literally gouged out by the Pelishtim (Shoftom 16:21). When Nachash the Amoni threatened the city of Yavesh Gilad (Shemuel I 11:1), he would only agree not to attack them if everyone gouged out their right eye (11:2; see Rashi who explains it both literally and metaphorically). In Mishlay (30:17), Shelomo HaMelech speaks of the eyes of a disobedient son being gouged out by a raven. Quoting Shemuel Rubinstein’s “Kadmonius HaHalacha,” Rav Samet suggests that having a gouged out eye was a symbol of slavery, as evidenced by what was done to Shimshon, what Nachash wanted to do to the people of Yavesh Gilad, and Nevuchadnetzar blinding Tzidkiyahu HaMelech before locking him up in chains and bringing him to Bavel (Melachim II 25:7). [This gives added perspective to the Torah setting a slave free if his eye is knocked out by his master (Shemos 21:26); whereas other cultures maimed their slaves in order to brand them, the Torah not only forbids maiming slaves, but makes it have the exact opposite affect, as the slave attains freedom instead.] Based on this, Rav Samet says that Dusun and Avirum were paralleling their earlier statement against Moshe’s leadership (Bamidbar 16:13) by asking (rhetorically) whether Moshe planned on gouging out their eyes, i.e. treating them as slaves.

    Another approach suggested by Rav Samet is based on Professor Moshe Weinfeld writing (in “Olam HaTanach”) that gouging out the eyes “was a common punishment for rebellion in the ancient east (and especially in the areas of the Hittites). Indeed, one Hittite document contains a threat of putting out eyes for failure to appear before the ruler: ‘When you receive the letter, present yourself immediately; if not – your eyes will be put out.’” Although Rav Samet does not suggest that Dusun or Avirum really feared that Moshe would do this to them (or they would have obliged), he does say that it is part of their attack on Moshe’s leadership, as they were asking (rhetorically) if Moshe was going to treat them as others rulers treat those that disobey them.

    Based on these suggestions, I would like to take it a step further. If gouging out an eye was the norm for branding someone as a slave, it makes sense that the punishment for disobeying the ruler was to be treated as less than a peasant, to be maimed the way a slave was, to show that this “rebel” is really the ruler’s subject. Dusun and Avirum knew that Moshe wouldn’t do this, but were continuing their verbal attack by comparing Moshe’s edicts with those of the native (primitive?) cultures. “You (Moshe) claim that your teachings, your laws and edicts (such as Aharon being the Kohain Gadol, the first born being replaced by the Levi’im, and Yosef getting Reuvein’s double-portion in the Promised Land), come directly from the Creator, and are therefore superior (intellectually and morally) to every other system of law, but we deny that. We think you are no different than any other ruler, making laws as you see fit (including giving family members better positions).” And, to drive the point home, they added “will you treat us in the same barbaric way as other rulers, gouging out our eyes for refusing to present ourselves before you? Your edicts are no different (or better) than theirs anyway, so why should the way you treat those that disagree with you be any different?” Although they knew that Moshe would never do such a thing, the point they were making was evident. “You do not have the divine authority to order us around, so we will not go up (before you).

Important statement of support for Israel

http://bit.ly/9MTfW4

Parsha Thoughts by Rabbi Dov Kramer

Taking a Closer Look (Rabbi Dov Kramer)

    “And My servant Kalev, as a result of there being a different spirit with him, and his following after Me completely, I will bring him [in]to the land that he came, and his descendants will inherit it” (Bamidbar 14:24). What about Yehoshua? Wasn’t he also an exception, whereby everybody else but he and Kalev died in the desert? Why didn’t G-d tell Moshe that his faithful student Yehoshua would also be allowed to enter the Promised Land?

    Okay, I know. Yehoshua is mentioned with Kalev later (14:30) as being the exceptions, but why did it take so long for G-d to let Moshe know this? Although the commentators do differentiate between Kalev and Yehoshua insofar as Moshe prayed for Yehoshua (see Rashi on 13:16) whereas Kalev had to pray for himself (see Rashi on 13:22), Kalev spoke up first (13:30) while Yehoshua only joined Kalev in disagreeing with the other spies later (14:7-9), and only Kalev had children and could actually inherit the land, it still seems awkward that Yehoshua was totally ignored initially, leaving his teacher and mentor (Moshe) not knowing (until later) that his student would also be allowed to enter the land.

     Which brings us to a different, perhaps even more difficult, question: Why was the decree against the nation repeated, as if Moshe didn’t already know that the generation was not going to make it to the Promised Land? First, G-d threatens to wipe out the entire nation completely and start a new one from Moshe (14:12). Moshe responds by arguing why G-d can’t (or shouldn’t) do so (14:13-16), followed by his prayer on their behalf (14:17-19). G-d relents (14:20), but only as far as not wiping out the entire nation and starting anew with Moshe (see Or Hachayim). G-d swears (14:21) that no one but Kalev will make it to the Promised Land (14:22-24), again, without mentioning that Yehoshua will also be allowed to go. After telling Moshe that they will therefore have to turn back towards the Sea of Reeds (14:25), the paragraph ends. The tragic story seems to have been told; except for Kalev, the generation will not be allowed to complete their journey.

     But then, in a new paragraph, G-d speaks to Moshe again (14:26), this time with Aharon, although Chazal tell us that that just means that Moshe told Aharon and then together they told the nation (not that Aharon received the message directly from G-d). G-d asks how long He must tolerate the complaints (14:27, compare with 14:11), and tells Moshe and Aharon to tell the nation that He swears that He will kill out the entire generation (14:28-29) so that none of them, except for Kalev and Yehoshua, will make it to the Promised Land (14:30). Why was this repetition necessary, and why was Yehoshua only mentioned the second time?

     As the Or Hachayim and the Netziv point out, the first “paragraph” was told only to Moshe, without any instructions for him to relay the information to anyone else. Only the second time is the word “laimor,” (“saying”) added, i.e. the permission or instruction to tell over what G-d told him to others. The question then becomes why didn’t G-d just tell Moshe that he could/should tell the nation what His decree was the first time? Why did there have to be two paragraphs, one just for Moshe’s ears and one to be shared with everyone else? By taking a closer look at the two paragraphs, an interesting picture emerges.

     When G-d first speaks to Moshe about destroying the nation (14:11), He asks, “until what point will this nation anger Me.” On top of the unwarranted complaining done when the journey to the Promised Land first started (11:1), the crying over the newly-forbidden relationships (see Rashi on 11:10), the insult of the heavenly manna (11:6), the craving for meat (11:4) and the indulgence in it after it was provided (11:32-33), the nation now believed the spies assessment that the inhabitants of Canaan were too powerful for G-d to drive out (see Rashi on 13:31). They cried all night (14:1), wishing they had either died in Egypt or in the desert rather than trying to conquer Canaan (14:2), and tried to organize themselves to head back to Egypt (14:4). The words “until what point” refer to the level of irritation they had brought G-d to (as it were). G-d was so fed up with them that he wanted to wipe them out and start a new nation with Moshe. In this private conversation between G-d and Moshe, after Moshe convinces G-d not to wipe them out there is no mention at all of G-d killing them (even over time). All that G-d says (and swears to) is that “all of those that went against Me will never make it to the Promised Land.”

     Before explaining the difference between not being able to enter the Promised Land and dying in the desert, let’s get back to Kalev and Yehoshua. If they never “went against G-d,” i.e. never angered Him, then they would not have been included with those that wouldn’t be allowed to enter the land. Rather than the question being why was Yehoshua being an exception omitted, the question is really why did G-d have to mention Kalev being an “exception to the rule” if he was never part of the “rule” in the first place (i.e. never angered G-d so wasn’t excluded from being allowed to enter the land).

     Rashi (11:24) tells us that at first Kalev did make it seem as if he agreed with the other spies, telling them that he was on their side (so that they would let him speak) even though he never really was. Malbim takes it a step further, saying that initially Kalev did agree with the rest of the spies, which is why he went to the burial place of the forefathers to pray to be saved from such an outlook. If Kalev initially was with the spies, that means that he had been against G-d. Even if he was never really “with” them (only pretended to be) was saying he was with them enough to be included with those who went against G-d, and therefore excluded from being allowed to enter the Promised Land? In order to make it perfectly clear that Kalev was not, G-d told Moshe that Kalev would cross into the land. Moshe already knew that Yehoshua was not part of that group, so G-d didn’t have to tell him that Yehoshua could go. That Kalev could, on the other hand, was not as obvious, so G-d pointed out that Kalev could go too.

     So G-d told Moshe that He listened to his prayer and he wouldn’t wipe the nation out, but He still wouldn’t let them enter the Promised Land. Does this mean they must die first? The assumption is that the only way for them to not enter the land is if they die before the rest of the nation crosses into it. But is that really true? Isn’t it possible for them to stay alive on the east side of the Jordan River while the rest of the nation crosses over to the west side? Moshe was forbidden from entering the land, but he conquered the lands of Sichon and Og, didn’t he? And the Tribes of Reuvain and Gad settled their families there before everyone else crossed, didn’t they? Had Reuvain and Gad not asked for their inheritance to be there, wouldn’t all 12 Tribes have shared equally on the eastern side (and the western side)? In the first paragraph, the private conversation with Moshe, once G-d agreed not to destroy the nation there is no mention of anyone dying. The rest of the conversation is only about entering or not entering the land.

     Immediately prior to telling Moshe that He wants to destroy the nation, “G-d’s glory appeared to all of the Children of Israel in the Tent of Meeting” (14:10). The Yalkut Shimoni (643) tells us that G-d appeared to them hoping it would get them to repent. Although the context is getting to repent from throwing stones at Moshe and Aharon (or Kalev and Yehoshua; see Rashi), it could be suggested that G-d was hoping that they would also repent from the slander they had said/believed about Him and His land. Had they done so, although G-d had already sworn that they couldn’t enter His land, they wouldn’t have had to die prematurely, and/or in the desert. They could have joined the rest of the nation while they conquered the lands of Sichon and Og, and lived there until they died of natural causes. Their children would have crossed onto the western side of the Jordan and conquered Canaan while they stayed on the eastern side, thus keeping with G-d’s oath while letting them live out the rest of their lives. But, unfortunately, they didn’t repent, and continued to bemoan the thought of having to conquer.

     G-d had enough of their complaining, requiring a second communication with Moshe, this time to be repeated to the nation. G-d asked “how long” this evil congregation would keep complaining (14:27). Not “how much” (14:11, see Netziv), but “how long.” G-d had given them time to reconsider their attitude, but nothing had changed. How long did G-d wait before losing His patience (as it were) and upping the decree from not entering the land to “dying in the desert” (14:29 and 32, as if to drive the point home that now death was part of the decree, whereas it wouldn’t have been had they repented)? “And the men that spoke badly about the land died on the seventh day of Elul” (Targum Yonasan, 14:37). That’s a full month after the spies came back with their report. Some (see Tur/Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 580:2) say it was the seventeenth of Elul, which makes for an interesting symmetry of having 40 days to repent for the 40-day mission. Either way, though, initially G-d swore that they couldn’t enter the land, but didn’t say that they needed to die in the desert. Perhaps they didn’t even need to wander for 40 years in the desert, as this part of the punishment is also only mentioned in the second paragraph. After giving them plenty of time to repent, G-d told Moshe to tell them that now it’s too late. Not only wouldn’t anyone (besides Kalev and Yehoshua) be allowed to enter the land, but they would all die in the desert during the 40 years the nation would have to spend wandering. This way, G-d still kept his word that they wouldn’t die all at once, but they would get what they wished for (14:2), dying in the desert rather than crossing into the Promised Land.

    The commentators on the Tur/Shulchan Aruch ask why the seventeenth (or seventh) of Elul is a fast day based on the spies dying on that day if the death of the wicked is usually celebrated. Based on the above, we can understand not just why there are two separate paragraphs detailing the decree after the sin of the spies, and why Yehoshua is not mentioned as an exception in the first paragraph. If the nation had 30 or 40 days to repent and didn’t, it makes sense to try even more than usual to repent on that day. If nothing else, realizing the consequences of not repenting should help get us to improve our ways.